Profiling – a Compare & Contrast Essay

Profiling for the sake of national security is a controversial and often argued topic. Is it truly racial profiling or religious discrimination if the physical characteristics of the suspected people are being taken into consideration for the sake of our country’s safety? Some think it’s unnecessary and serves virtually no purpose when innocent people are grilled for hours on end in immigration offices before being allowed to go about their business, like Adnan Khan describes in his piece, “Close Encounters with U.S. Immigration.” Others value the security and comfort it brings, even if innocent people are detained and inconvenienced for a few hours, as described by Linda Chavez in her piece, “Everything Isn’t Racial Profiling.” Though they have opposing points of view, each author brings to the table valid points, both opinions based largely on personal experiences in their own lives.

Although many believe that judging a book by its cover is wrong and inaccurate, sometimes it is necessary to take a person’s appearance into consideration when suspects fit a specific superficial characteristic. “Since 9/11, my brown skin’s been sort of a blinking light to many curiosity seekers, my sleepy left eye a source of worry for the growing list of morphological profilers roaming the streets of North America” (Khan 451). Immediately opening with a gripe of sorts, this piece blossoms into a clear portrayal of the negative aspect of profiling involving Muslims and middle eastern citizens, and why. Though 9/11 has come and gone, terrorism is still a great threat in the United States, and security is still tight. Some have absolutely no patience for erring on the side of caution when it comes to national security, while others are very understanding of why such caution is necessary.

“But I’m not opposed to allowing – no, requiring – airlines to pay closer attention to passengers who fit a terrorist profile, which includes national origin. The problem is distinguishing between what is permissible, indeed prudent, behavior and what is merely bigotry” (Chavez 456). Catching the reader’s attention with such a statement in the very beginning of her piece is definitely a good way to catch attention and ensure interest throughout the entire piece. Chavez seems to focus more on the difference between racial profiling simply because of skin color versus profiling because of a crime committed or likely to be committed again. Both authors bring to the table an interesting array of examples and experiences to support their opinions on the issue.

It absolutely must be frustrating and irritating to be pulled aside at an airport and escorted to a back room for questioning, and more often than not can alienate someone and make them feel like some kind of criminal. “Another Middle Eastern man, after having his wallet unceremoniously emptied onto a counter before he was whisked away and locked in a back room, only to be released an hour later and told to go back to Canada, refused to discuss his ordeal with me” (Khan 452). Unpleasant as it must be, even this author knows that there are reasons behind such measures even though this treatment may not always seem fair or justified to those who fit the profile. Khan says that he, “know[s] America has a right to defend its border, but Muslims are increasingly under suspicion these days, even comfortably hyphenated Canadian ones like [him]self” (451-452). When appearances are all the security team has to go by at first, there isn’t any way for them to tell whether someone is a comfortably hyphenated Canadian-Muslim or a terrorist. Sometimes that’s what it takes to catch the bad guys, and some excellent examples are given in Chavez’s piece offering the opposing point of view.

Chavez points out that, “It would make no sense if witnesses identified a six-foot-tall, blond male fleeing a homicide but police stopped females, short men, or blacks or Latinos for questioning” (457). No one would be able to file a discrimination suit in this case anyway, simply because the targeted suspect is a six-foot tall white male, however a very valid point comes up: skin color is a characteristic, as well as national origin. Because the terrorist attack of 9/11 was associated with Middle Eastern Muslim people, those characteristics are what security officials are searching for when they keep an eye out for suspicious-looking characters. “… nineteen Arab terrorists killed more than three thousand Americans on September 11, and several of the hijackers possessed stolen identification cards and pilots’ uniforms” (Chavez 458). Even with official identification and uniforms, someone fitting the profile of a terrorist could be on the flight! It is vitally important for airlines and security officials to be highly cautious and meticulous about ensuring public safety and national security. “Sure it’s unpleasant to be a suspect when you’re innocent. But it’s worse to overlook terrorists because we ignored their pertinent characteristics” (Chavez 458). Pertinent characteristics in this case include skin color and national origin, as unpleasant as that fact is. However, it definitely wouldn’t make any sense for airport security to keep an eye out for a six-foot tall blond man, would it? As irritating as this rising suspicion may be for some, many feel it to be absolutely necessary and understand why.

Annoyance and impatience is absolutely obvious throughout Khan’s piece, though under it all he still admits that the U.S. is merely looking out for itself. Khan says, “During the three-hour ordeal, [he]’d been made to feel like an unwanted outsider, as if [he] were guilty of some heinous crime and now it was [his] responsibility to prove [his] innocence” (453). To better deal with feeling so judged and mistreated, he uses irony to make light of the situation, and finds himself grateful to have been let go as opposed to locked in a prison. “When it was all over, I couldn’t help but laugh as I drove back over the bridge, picturing my personal profile wasting kilobytes in an FBI database” (Khan 453). Relief definitely has such an effect on people, and all he could really do was laugh it off in the end and question the sanity of the security system. When told to go home, he responded with a single word, closing out the piece on an ironically bitter yet humorous note: “Gladly” (Khan 453). Though other suspected yet innocent people feel the same annoyance to a point, understanding is also present, leading to a completely different type of humorous interjection as well as a more focused and clever final statement.

Embarrassment and humiliation go hand in hand with being singled out of any situation, whether it be caused by someone else or caused by oneself. Chavez was, “humiliat[ed] to be called off the plane and to have the passengers told the flight would be delayed because of concerns about one of the passenger’s bags” (457). Some people focus on this humiliation when recalling these types of events, unable to laugh about it or understand what the other side of the coin was about. However, upon further consideration and thought on the topic and the logic behind the humiliating circumstance, things become clearer. Chavez admits that she, “didn’t like being singled out, but [she] understood why [she] was being subjected to more scrutiny. At the time [she] was hassled, Middle Eastern terrorism was very prevalent in Europe, and female terrorists were operating  as well as men, usually on stolen or phony passports” (458). Once the reason is identified and understood, it becomes easier to maintain a level of patience and understanding for the precautions taken, especially in airports. “I sometimes felt annoyed when I was singled out, but I also felt safer because the airlines were doing their job” (Chavez 458). Though this closing statement doesn’t give the bitterly humorous punch like Khan’s does, it definitely drives home a powerful message that can make anyone reconsider their irritability at being suspected even when they’re innocent based on their appearance.

The target audience for Khan’s piece, Maclean’s in the year 2002, is a Canadian audience as opposed to a U.S. audience, which would explain why the bitter humor and irritability fit so well into this essay. Many of these readers will understand exactly where the author is coming from, and sympathize with him instead of sympathizing with the national security of the United States. Chavez on the other hand was writing for a widespread conservative American audience in the same year, playing on the patriotism and passion of the American people at a time when the 9/11 attacks were still a freshly inflicted wound on the people of this country. With such a different audience and opposing viewpoints to consider, each of these authors did an amazing job tailoring their work to the audience they were writing for, as well as playing on the sympathies of each audience. Though the subject matter is the same, the tonal differences in each piece reflect the cultural and geographical differences of each target audience.

While each of these authors has valid points and writes well to suit the needs of their audience, it is ultimately up to the reader to decide which piece has more of an impact for them as an individual. Some people value their individual liberties more than the safety of their country as a whole; others see the bigger picture and recognize that it may involve some personal sacrifice or discomfort on their part. Obviously, though, a comfortably hyphenated Canadian-Muslim residing in Canada won’t be as concerned with national security in the United States as a U.S. citizen would. However, even people simply passing through the U.S. borders should be very aware that the terrorists this country is cautious of are not six-foot tall blond men.

Works Cited: